Opinion
No. A-10588.
September 4, 1946.
(Syllabus.)
1. Syllabus Followed. The same issues are involved as were involved in Hughes v. State, 83 Okla. Cr. 16, 172 P.2d 435. The syllabus of that case is adopted as the syllabus of this case.
2. Searches and Seizures — Sufficiency of Description of Premises in Search Warrant. If the descriptions in search warrant are sufficient to enable officer executing the search warrant to locate the premises to be searched without aid of any other information save that contained in warrant, the warrant is sufficient.
3. Appeal and Error — Conclusiveness of Finding That Search Warrant Sufficiently Described Premises. In hearing on motion to suppress evidence, court's finding on disputed question of fact as to whether search warrant sufficiently described defendant's premises will be sustained where there is competent evidence in record to support finding.
4. Same — Fundamental Issue Determined by Criminal Court of Appeals. Where issue raised is fundamental, directed to jurisdiction of trial court, Criminal Court of Appeals will determine matter, even though raised for first time on appeal.
5. Constitutional Law — Waiver of Rights by Accused. A defendant in a criminal case may waive any right not inalienable, given him by the statute or by the Constitution, either by express agreement or conduct, or by such failure to insist upon it in seasonable time as will operate as an estoppel to his afterwards setting it up against the state.
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Oklahoma County; Glen O. Morris, Judge.
Carl Hughes was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors and he appeals. Affirmed.
A. E. Pearson and Warren H. Edwards, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Ewing C. Sadler, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
The defendant, Carl Hughes, was charged in the court of common pleas of Oklahoma county with the offense of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, was tried, convicted, sentenced to serve 30 days in jail and pay a fine of $50, and has appealed.
The same issues are involved in this appeal as were involved in the appeal in case number A-10587, Hughes v. State, 83 Okla. Cr. 16, 172 P.2d 435. The identical description was in the search warrant used in this case as was inserted in the warrant used in case A-10587, supra.
The cases were consolidated for hearing on the motion to suppress evidence by the court of common pleas, and by agreement they were consolidated for the purpose of briefing and argument before this court.
Since the same issues are involved in both cases, the conclusions which we reached in case No. A-10587, supra, apply equally to the contentions raised in this case. The judgment of the court of common pleas of Oklahoma county is affirmed.
BAREFOOT, J., concurs. DOYLE, J., not participating.